Loading...
PCMIN 11 10 1998 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 10, 1998 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairman Tyler who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Tyler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. 'Unanimously approved. C. Staffpresent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawye£ II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Chairman Tyler requested the agenda be reorganized to take the Business Item first and Public Hearing Items B and C second. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk and unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of October 13, 1998. Commissioner Robbins asked that Page 7 corrected as the spelling of his name was incorrect. There being no other correction, it Was moved and seconded 'by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to approve the minutes as corrected. B. Chairman Tyler asked that the Minutes of October 27, 1998, be corrected on Page 4, Item 7 to replace the word "upgraded" with "refurbished" and delete Item 11; Page 6, Item 9, on the sixth line, it should read, "...guarantee there will be no loft on two story units on this lot." There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Abels abstained. C. Department Report: None. C:XlVly Documents\WPDOCS\pc I 1-10-98.wpd 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Cove Residential Master Design Guidelines 98-001; a request of Esquiel Coronel, Coronel Construction for approval of Master Design Guidelines for homes to be built throughout the Cove. 1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. commissioner Robbins asked staff to explain the Maser Design Guidelines process. He had no objection to any of the designs as submitted. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated these guidelines would be used by staff for all future homes built in the Cove by this developer. Currently any home built in the Cove goes through a staff review process meeting certain design guidelines.' Staff reviews the elevations and determine whether or not the house meets the standards for the Cove. Commissioner Robbins asked if there was anything to prevent the builder from using the design- anywhere in the Cove. Design standards require the front elevation of each house to be different within 200 feet of each other. 3. Chairman Tyler asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding this item. There being none, the public participation was closed. 4. Chairman Tyler asked that on Pages 21 and 22 there is a reference to two story units. As two story units are not allowed in the Cove this should be deleted from the developers guidelines. 5. Commissioner Kirk stated the presentation and photo approach was very effective. He suggested that Page 3, where one of the elevations shows a bay window, this should be one of the window treatments that should be considered as an alternative. In regard to the window treatments, the builder did a fairly good job on Pages 11 and 12, but he would suggest adding a bay window. On Page 10 he would suggest the developer zoom in on the window treatments, rather than a full elevation. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Kirk/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 98-010, approving Master Design Guidelines 98-001, as submitted. Unanimously approved. Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tentative Tract Map 29004; a request of KSL Land Corporation for approval and recommendation to the City Council for an 11 lot single family residemial subdivision on 3.75 acres within the PGA West Jack Nicklaus Resort Course area, along the east side of Southern Hills at its intersection with Oakmont. 1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Chris Berg, MDS Consulting, civil engineers representing the applicant, stated he had no objections to the recommendations/conditions as 'presented by staff. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by -- Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-076 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 29004, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES; None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Site Development Permit 98-637; a request of Hall and Foreman, Inc., for WalMart for approval of a 26 foot by 143.6 foot expansion to WalMart's outside Garden Center. 1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and requested, the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Butler asked if the landscaping issues had not been resolved and if not, could they be addressed at this time. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio noted the issues had been corrected to statFs satisfaction. 3. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. C :~My Documents\WPDOCS\pc I 1 - 10-98.wpd 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 4. Chairman Tyler asked if the series of pillars that along the Garden Center would remain. Staff stated it was unknown whether they would be moved or reconstructed, but it is to remain the same as it is now. Staff did add a condition that on the back side of the Auto Center they are required to be the same column deSign. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-077 approving Site Development Permit 98-637, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as submitted/amended: C. Environmental Assessment 97-029-Amendment #1, Site Development Permit 97- 603-Amendment # 1. Development Agreement 97-002-Amendment #1; a request of Stamko Development Company for approval and recommendation to the City Council for Certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; approval of "The Centre at La Quinta' Specific Plan Amendment creating development guidelines and standards for a multi-phased Mixed Regional Commercial complex with three planning areas having four development scenarios; approval of a Site Development Permit Amendment including the building elevations, site, landscaping, and lighting plans for three auto dealerships; and approval of the Development Agreement Amendment, for the property located south of Highway 111 between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road. 1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and stated he was deeply disturbed about the adversarial overtones that are discemable in the various attachments to the staff report prepared for this hearing. To some extent these also surfaced during the previous portion of this public hearing on October 13, 1998. There should be no question in anyone's mind that this project is a significant project for our City. The fact that the City Council previously approved this key project -- including the Development Agreement -- in July, 1997, indicates the City's strong support for the project. The fact that the developer, Stamko Development, along with the initial cadre of auto dealers, have persevered through all the obstacles placed in their way by various and sundry parties, clearly indicates their continued interest in moving forward with the project at this time. In our deliberations tonight, therefore, we fid two willing parties, both of whom wish to proceed with this project in all due . haste. This should be a "slam dunk". What we have been considering in this public hearing are alterations to various documents which result from .. changes suggested by the City and the applicant. For the City, the majority of these changes relate to the Highway 111 Landscape Design Guidelines that were codified subsequent to the previous City approval of this project. C:WIy Documents\WPDOCS\pc I 1-10-98.wpd 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 For the applicant, changes became necessary due to the restructuring of the initial auto dealership complement and the postulatiOn of three planning areas with four possible development scenarios. In reviewing all the materials contained in the staff report, there are still a few unresolved tel-ms and conditions that need to be settled tonight. It is my hope and intent that tonight's public hearing will be concluded in a professional, non-adversarial manner, and that we can mutually reSolve any and all outstanding issues in an expedient fashion. 2. planning Manager Christine di Iofio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff clarified that the Condition #14 should state the recommendation is for 68 trees in the Highway 111 setback, not 14 trees. 3. Chairman Tyler asked if any comments had been received on the SEIR. Staff noted no significant comments had been received. 4. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained the drawings that had been given to the Commission. He stated the elevation drawings were derived from two sources: the landscaped area they are illustrated in the specific plan and the grading plan that is currently in plan check. Discussion followed on each of the cross section drawings. 5. . Figure A: Highway 111,120 feet east of Adams Street. 6. Figure B' Highway 111,120 feet east of Adams Street same view but giving a closer view. a. Commissioner Robbins noted that the elevations were taken from the outside lane and if you moved to the inside lanes you would not be able to see the cars. Staff stated as yOu move farther to the north there is more of a slope. Especially at this location as it is a super elevated street.. b. Chairman Tyler asked if public parking was allowed along the curb. Staff stated it is not posted and typically used only for a breakdown. It is governed by Caltrans as it is a State Highway. 7. Figure C: Highway 111,120 east of Adams Street, same view except it shows a pedestrian on the sidewalk. Staff is trying to show the relative depth from the pedestrian's perspective to the bottom of the retention basin is about a 13- foot differential. C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pcl 1-10-98.wpd 5 Planning Commission Meeting NOvember 10, 1998 a. Commissioner Robbins asked what the difference was between the display pad and the bottom of the retention basin. Staff stated it is about two and a half feet. The bottom of the retention basin to the sidewalk is eight feet. 8. Figure D: Highway 111 at the west end of Display Pad #2. The line of site from Highway 11 1 allows the display pad to be visible. a. Commissioner Robbins noted there could be no retention basin at this location and asked staff to identify what they were trying to point out. Staff stated it displays the depth into the retention basin. It is four feet lower than the display pad. You are' only allowed to retain in the Highway '111 setback water from the fight of way and the landscaped setback area itself. This figure shows what the elevation differentials will be if the project is approved as proposed. 9. Figure E: Highway 111, at the west end of Display Pad #2 is the same location except it shows the' pedestrian next to the retention basin. This shows a 13 foot depth elevation differential from the pedestrian's eye level to the bottom of the basin. 10. Figure F: Highway 111, Dealer Pad #2, parked vehicles. Has a one and a half foot high berm and hides about half of the vehicle. It'has a 5:1 slope down to the pad as well as a modest swale about a half foot deep. a. Commissioner Robbins stated this could be a three foot berm. As you look up fi'om the display pad, from where the display vehicle is, to the top it would be a four foot berm. Staff noted the ordinance stated a berm is measured from the curb. 11. Figure G: Highway 222, Dealer Pad #2, parked vehicles, but if landscape guidelines were implemented. This is with a three foot berm and hides more of the regular vehicle display area. a. Commissioner Kirk asked if these were guidelines, or part of the Ordinance. Planning Manager Christi di Iorio clarified that as discussed in the staff report on Page 5, Item 4.b. it outlines that the Zoning Code adopted that portion of the Highway 111 Guidelines which included specific design guidelines for setbacks, particularly storm water retention. This was added to the guidelines at the time of adoption because of the concerns with the Home Depot landscaping. It became apparent the landscaping was not C:LMy Documents\WPDOCS\pcl 1-10-98.wpd 6 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 accomplishing the desired lo0k along Highway 111. The second - issue was the Lapis project which puts all its retention on Highway 111. When Lapis came back for a revision to their specific plan, the Guidelines were imposed. The majority of the drainage is now out of the Highway 111 setback and a part of the project on site. The third. item is that the applicant has stated the development standards within' the Zoning Code may be modified under a specific plan. However, this specific plan amendment includes the removal of the six foot screen wall which was identified in the EIR as being necessary to screen the auto mall loading, storage, parking, and lower building elevation as viewed from Adams Street and Highway 111. Therefore, the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) analyzed the berming as an alternative to the wall and found that it does not' adequately screen the vehicle display areas along Highway 111. Therefore mitigation measures for the Aesthetic section required adequate .berming to screen the regular display areas and allow them · to keep their special display areas for visibility to Highway 111. -- b. Commissioner Kirk stated his question was that he wanted clarification for the maximum and minimum. Staff stated the Design Guidelines have a minimum and maximum height with the objective of screening the cars. In addition, there is the mitigation measure which states what is necessary to screen the cars. c. Commissioner Robbins asked Why staff was not taking into consideration the landscaping and berming. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated he was only showing elevations. The point is that staff wants the Commission to make a fully informed decision based on " the elevations. 12. Figure H: Adams Street. Statements have been made that the site is 12 feet lower than the Highway and that is tree in its native condition. In its improved condition, the elevation differential ~rom the top of curb at the pad to the top of the curb at the street is 4.9 feet. It is a gentle slope with a 32 foot wide landscaped setback area combined with the fight of way and you can mitigate that downslope of 5:1 as it is enough area to meander the sidewalk. a. Chairman Tyler asked staff to identify this location. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it was an Adams Street curb at the end of the curb remm as it roms off the Highway going south. CSMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc 11-10-98.wpd 7 · Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 b. Chairman Tyler asked if there was a similar one at 90 degrees at the Highway 111 curb. Staff stated no, but it would be similar because the elevation on the Highway is similar. It could be better mitigated because the landscape setback on the Highway is 62 feet from the curb. c. Commissioner Robbins asked if the applicant was proposing a straight walk along Adams Street. Staff stated that was tree. 13. Figure I: Adams Street next to Avenue 47. The dealers pad is higher than · Adams Street by 2.6 feet and has a gentle up sweep. . 14. Chairman Tyler asked what the applicant was proposing in regard to the on Site retention. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they were proposing the car dealers retain some of the storm water on their site slightly encroaching into the public right of way on the south side and a considerable amount of the storm water from their site would be drained northerly to the setback area on Highway 111. There is no common retention basin serving the three 'dealer pads and no retention basin down by the C.V.W.D. well site. When' the Water District develops the well site and it is brought on line, the Water District discharges its water before it is introduced into the domestic water system and that water needs to go somewhere. Staff is finding it more desirable to have the retention basin next to the well site. 15. Commissioner Robbins asked what percentage of the drainage relative to the entire site is flowing into the retention basins along Highway 111. Staff stated it was unknown. 16. Chairman Tyler asked if staff thoUght what the applicant was proposing was adequate to meet the requirements for water retention. Staff stated their retention basins will hold the water, but they do not comply with the City's Ordinance. 'They do have the right to take that exception within the specific plan. Staff's responsibility is to point this out to the Commission so the Commission is aware of what exceptions are being taken and to what degree. 17. Commissioner Robbins asked if staff's concern was that they were draining water into the setback or that there is not adequate screening of the cars. It appears they are being considered together and he believes they should be considered separately. Staff stated they are bringing to the Commission's attention the City's Guidelines and Ordinances that the City Council and Commission reviewed and approved so the Commission is aware of the deviations the applicant is taking. Planning Manager Christi di Iorio stated . . C :XlVly Documents\WPDOCS\pc I 1 - 10-98.wpd 8 --__ Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 they do come together because of the amount of storm water retention s~ff is assUming does not allow for the berming as what was demonstrated by the Figures that were shown to the CommiSsion at this meeting. Also, in regard to the mitigation measure, to see that the berming would accomplish the same objection as the six foot wall. This is how they are integrated and this is how staff has addressed it and how the EIR has addressed the issues. It is both Hydrology and Aesthetics. Commissioner Robbins stated that if the screening issue could be settled, then the water draining into the setback would not be an issue. Staff stated that if they can accomplish berming to adequately screen the vehicles, then it would be a decision of the Council to allow them to have more. drainage than just the Highway 111 drainage and the incidental drainage. The applicant has stated drainage would not occur from the street but would be taken further down on the project past La Quinta Drive. 18. Commissioner Kirk stated that when the Guidelines were developed the drainage in the Highway 111 was an aesthetic issue. Council did want to see basins along Highway 111. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated they did not want to see the basins as they left a hole that would allow you to see into the project area. It was their desire to screen the parking from Highway 111 and create an image corridor that would serve as an identity of La Quinta. When you analyze the 50 foot setback and their request for drainage staff did see that part of it could be placed in the setback, but it would be limited to either run off from the road or incidental. This lead staff to the Zoning Ordinance which included Highway 111 and the analysis of the 20 foot setbacks for the arterials. They found that nothing could be retained in the setbacks to accomplish the objection of berming to not only buffer cars, but to soften the impact of the walls being proposed for mitigation for subdivisions. 19. Chairman Tyler stated that during the last heating there was discussion as to where the water drained from Highway 111 and it seemed that it ran to the north and did not impinge on this area. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that is tree for the first pad, it gets back to a nOrmal crown shape by the time you get down to the second pad.' 20. Commissioner Robbins stated then there is no Street water draining from Highway 111 into these retention basins. Staff stated it was being carded _ easterly back into a retention basin either in front of this pad or the future retail pads. 21. There being no further public comment, the matter was open for Commission discussion. C :~Vly Documents\WPDOCS\pc I 1-10-98.wpd 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 22. Ms. Christine Clark, representing Stamko Development, introduced Mr. Shepardson the landscape architect for the project, to explain the thought process that went into the HighwaY 111 landscape design. As a result of the last meeting they had revised the panoramic view to incorporate on site landscaping. 23. Mr. Chuck Shepardson, Horton Shepardson Associates, landscape architects for the project, showed how they believed they were in conformance with the Design Guidelines. Their intent was to provide an undulating design for the softscape grading. In some areas they' were viewing into the display pads and the areas where they were trying to screen the new parking areas they raised the berms. On the west side of the project, at the comer of Adams Street and Highway 111, Pad #1, they have display areas and the greatest differential in height between Highway 111 and any one of the pads. Approximately 8 feet of difference between Highway 111 and the comer. They are creating a straight slope. Staff is showing a 2:1 slope which may be an interpretation of the contours, but they are trying to maximize it to 3:1. Going east where there is a bank of new vehicle parking, between this area the berms average in height from the grade of the street, adjacent to the curb, is approximately two and a half to three and a half feet. This will cause an undulating affect as required in the Guidelines. The berms are two to three feet and the' cars are five feet below street grade. This is a three foot berm, the cars are down five feet, and most of the cars will not be seen. At the intersection of Auto Center Drive North and Highway 111 the display pads and the grade are lowered to allow visibility. Pad #2 has another bank of new vehicle parking and they have berms of two and a half to three feet. Additional screenirig will be ' provided by the signage as well. Between Pads #2 and #3 the grade on Highway 111 and the grade to the pads start to catch up with each other. Then between the display areas they have berms of about two feet. They are trying to creme the undulating natural affect. The last pad, Pad #3, is the next area of new vehicles. The pads here average three to four feet, with a grade of 66 along the street, with a berms up to 70 feet at high points. The reason they are doing this is because the grade is starting to catch up with each other and they are provide higher berming in the areas they find necessary. 24. Commissioner Kirk asked if they had done any cross sections as staff had prepared. Mr. Shepardson stated staff' s were very accurate except it should go slightly higher because of their high points. They will go higher than the last contour shown on the map. 25. Mr. Shepardson displayed the landscape plan superimposed on the contour grading plans. He stated they wanted to keep their display pads visible. The small symbols represented a species of plant material that make up a lot of c :xtvly Documents\WPDOCS\pc I 1 - 10-98.wpd 10 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 accent or textured material that stays low to not block visibility. Palm trees are being planted in between the display pads to provide accent or focal points.. In front of the new vehicles area they have the massing of trees to provide screening and shrub material that grows five and six feet mil to provide additional screening of the new vehicle cars. The turf area is along the curb and walkway which is according to' the Design Guidelines. The Architectural Landscaping and Review Committee (ALRC) discussed these items and agreed with their proposal. Staff's request to double the trees was not agreed to by the ALRC, but they did want additional trees in front of the new vehicle display areas. 26. Commissioner Robbins asked how many trees were proposed for the setback area. Mr. Shepardson stated 36 not counting the trees in the median. They are Mesquite trees, because the dealer has a problem with flowering trees as they can cause a mess with the new cars: The ALRC also agreed with them on this issue as well. If the trees are pushed further out to Highway 111 then they are in the area of the display signs which would block the signage. 27. .Chairman Tyler asked if this was the landscaping plan shown to the ALRC.. Mr. Shepardson stated no and showed the current plans which indicated they had additional trees. Chairman Tyler asked if Palm trees were proposed. Mr. Shepardson stated they were flanking all sides of the display pads. The Palm trees indicate the focal point. He went on to show the landscape elevation plans. 28. 'Commissioner Robbins asked the size of the trees that will be planted first relative to what is being shown on the plans. Mr. Shepardson stated Mesquite trees .(24-36 inch box) grow very rapidly and would reach maturity Within five years and indicated where they would be planted. 29. Commissioner Robbins asked about the landscaping along Adams Street. Mr. Shepardson stated they currently have a sidewalk that is adjacent to the curb and they are considering a meandering sidewalk. They do not believe berming can occur in the first section where they have some differential in the grade between Adams Street and Highway 111 on the first pad. There is opportunity for berming further down from the comer. 30. Commissioner Robbins asked staff if there was any discussion regarding berming on Adams Street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the City Ordinance calls for berming on all arterial streets. The applicant is correct, however, that 270 feet south of the Highway is where the pad and street are at equal grade. From there south, which is half way between Highway 111 and 47th Avenue, the pads are higher than the street. This is where the Ordinance requires berming. C:~vly Documents\WPDOCS\pc 11-10-98.wpd 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 31. Ms. Clark stated that on Adams Street on Pad #1 there is a six foot wall coming down which is not on the lower pad because they are not constructing it. But, because Pad #1 has its storage on the west side, there is a six foot wall coming down. They are therefore, berming it up so it does not look distorted as it is a 12 foot drop. In FigUre I it does not show the existing wall. It starts approximately 50 feet down Adams Street to enclose the area and is 32 feet from the cUrb. Discussion followed regarding the location of the wall. 32. Commissioner Robbins asked if a retaining wall could be added. Mr. Shepardson stated it would be an added expense and would be up to the dealers. 33. Ms. Clark introduced Mr. Schultz who would address retention. First she would like to discuss the entire site which is an 87 acre site. They are asking to retain 12.5 acres. The initial phase is 12.5' acres including the street and 50% will be on site so when you look at the specific plan or the entire 87 acres they are only putting in this particular area 7.5 percent. They are actually retaining 92.5% of the site. 34. Mr. Chris Schultz, Keith International, stated the low points on Highway 111 are only in the special display areas. As a by product of the low points they provide a good location for drainage and retention. This concept is consistent with the originally approved Specific Plan. In regard to retention basins staff reduced the berm heights and he did not believe this was lame. Retention basins are only in those areas in front of the special display pads. Adequate berming has been provided in front of the regular display pads. In regard to how much of the three parcels direct mn-off to Highway 111, it is about a 60-40 split or 60 percent of the three pads mn offto Highway 111. The other 40 percent retains along the interior street areas. 35. Commissioner Robbins asked if the decision of the Planning Commission and City Council was to say they could not drain into the Highway 111 setback and they had to redesign the site, it appears the applicant is left with two extremes: 1) you could either hold the grades at the Highway 111 setback that exists now through the pads and lower the remainder of the site, which does not work unless you wanted to get rid of a lot of dirt to cause it to drain to the rear; or, 2) you could raise the display pads so it would drain to the back which would raise the display pads and increase the view of the vehicles from the street. Mr. Schultz stated the majority of the site is paving and building. To substantially redesign would require to find similar areas that would be pervious to provide retention. It would impact the number of spaces and parking lot configUration. C :hMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc I 1 - 10-98.wpd 12 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 . 36. Ms. Clarke stated that from a laYman's view point, to extend the setback of Highway 111 creating a moat effect so they would extend the landscaping ten feet. She did respond in writing to the Specific Plan comments and did not respond to the Site Development Permit because it was redundant. In regard · to the Specific Plan, Condition//2 and//3 have been addressed. Condition #7 needs to note on which street where the curb, gutter and sidewalk will not be constructed. Condition//9 has been covered, Condition//12 is in the text; Conditions # 13 and//14 were covered by Mr. Shepardson; Condition//15 has not been addressed. They are asking that if there is an auto mall and retail center they want a sign at 47~ and Adams Street. If there-is no auto mall constructed and it becomes all retail, no sign will be requested at this location. Condition # 16 they would like the single free standing sign as it was in the original specific plan. In regard to the signage for the auto dealers, they are asking for building signs on Highway 111 indicating the car dealer. There are a potential of nine signs because this is the ultimate buildout and they are stubbing out for all nine signs. In regard to Adams Street, they did not know the City wanted a meandering sidewalk. If they are required to install the meandering sidewalk it will take additional plan checks. As to the berming on Adams Street they are willing to do so on Development Scenario 4, but in regard to Development Scenario 1,2,3, they needs the same flexibility as they have on Highway 111 for the special display pads if this is to be an auto mall. Overall most of the issues in the Site Development Permit conditions are repetitive and they did not see a need to repeat them. As to Condition//36, CVWD has not indicated where the well site will be located. In Condition//47 the only part they can accept is B.1. 37. Ms. Clarke noted that the mitigation measure for the original specific plan regarding the six foot wall was due to the view'of the vehicles on Highway 111. Under this plan they have been turned and to say you have' to do the berming when in fact the berming is not needed because of the six foot wall. As to Figures A-E these are for special display areas that are meant to be seen. Some of the exhibits are not to scale as in Figure E. To get to the end of the sidewalk is 12 feet, but for the human to get to the car is 50 feet. 38. Commissioner Kirk asked why the applicant was objecting to all parts of Condition 47, except B.1. Ms. Clarke stated they are trying to keep the buildings clean and the trellis creates more clutter. As you see you can only see half of the building and the trellis will not be seen, they would prefer landscaping. Tiles become difficult because if yoU pull it around to the front ~ of the building' it will conflict with the signage. 39. Commissioner Kirk asked why the applicant was not informed of the meandering sidewalk on Adams Street until the third plan check review. Staff stated they would need to look at the tract conditions for the original C:WIy Documents\WPDOCS\pc I 1-10-98.wpd 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 10, 1998 specific plan. The staff report for the initial specific plan did describe the sidewalk on Adams Street and Highway 111 as being meandering. The. approved specific plan street detail show it against the curb and the landscaping plan shows a meandering sidewalk. It was an error that needs to be clarified. Ms Clark stated there was an error in the original specific plan. The specific plan conflicted as it showed meandering on the landscaping plans and on the street cross section exhibits next to the curb. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this issue came to the forefront at the last Planning Commission meeting. Staff therefore, compiled the exhibits shown at this meeting to confirm whether or not a meandering sidewalk could be constructed on Adams Street, and it is possible. Commissioner Kirk asked if th~ ordinance called for meandering sidewalk, Staff stated it does. 40. Commissioner Butler stated he was confused and wanted to know why she would accept Development Scenario 4 and not 1,2,3. Ms. Clark stated that Scenarios t, 2, and 3 are for an auto mall. Scenario 4 is for a mixed retail use and is different. If an auto mall extends into Scenarios 2 and 3, displays are needed on the Adams Street setback line. Commissioner Butler stated this would create another problem as the cars would be seen by the neighbors on Adams Street. 'Ms. Clarke. stated the residents of Lake La Quinta were concerned with the noise and lighting and therefore they moved the entrances and shielded the lights on Adams Street. The residents wanted light and yet did not, so they agreed to landscaping lighting. They were able to mitigate their concerns. 41. Chairman Tyler asked if there would be a continuous six foot wall along Adams Street. Ms. Clarke stated only for the Chrysler building. They have to keep the service entrance on the north, south and east. 42. ' Commissioner BUtler stated that if a meandering sidewalk is not on Adams Street how would they buffer hhe storage. Ms. Clarke stated they would install a wall. The site development p~rmit would control how the buildings would be setback. The specific plan describes the orientation of the buildings. As to the wall, if Pad #4 becomes an auto mall with nine dealers she is uncertain how they would handle their storage. 43. Chairman Tyler asked about the building mounted signs facing Highway 111 and trading off for the secondary .signage for the monument signs. Ms. Clarke explained that the secondary signs were signs such as "service" or "used cars". The dealers have instead asked for dealer identification signs on Highway 111. Chairman Tyler stated secondary signs will be needed to direct the traffic to these areas. Ms. Clarke stated these signs are on the interior. C :XMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc 11 - 10-98.wpd 14 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 44. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify when the meandering sidewalk and berming came to light on Adams Street. Mr. Schultz stated the original design based on the approved specific plan showed a straight sidewalk, it was submitted to the City and after the third plan check the comment was made to meander the sidewalk. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this was correct. Staff was plan checking the plans under the old specific plan. They are now in for an amendment. This is now before the Commission under this amendment to see whether or not the specific plan will be required to meet the Design Guidelines. It has been stated by the apPlicant several times that Adams Street is too steep to build a meandering sidewalk, however, after compiling the cross section, staff determined it was possible. It is an option for the Commission and Council to determine whether or not they want it meandered. 45. Commissioner Robbins asked if any of the final grading plan had been submitted. Staff stated they had submitted a grading plan that showed building footprints. Staff asked them to remove the building footprints. Staff has agreed to a mass grading plan that does not identify or anticipate any permanent storm water retention basins at any specific location. Knowing they were coming in for a revision to the specific plan, staff is holding back on the retention plans until Council approval. 46. There being no further public comment,'the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the applicant had taken exception and indicated she would not do complete street improvements on La Quinta .Centre Drive and Auto Centre Drive North and Auto Centre Drive. It is staff's position that curb and. gutter be constructed on the south side of the street as well as sidewalk. Eagle Hardware was required to install both sides of the street. 47. Commissioner Robbins clarified, there would be no on-site parking for employees or customers. Mr. Tom Walker architect for the project, stated they have provided adequate parking for employees and customers on site. They do not want to encourage parking on the street as it is unsightly and can block the cars. Staff noted it was marked on the plans. 48. Mr. Schultz stated that on the street improvements, in discussions with staff, it was determined that when development occurred on the opposite side of the street the curb and gutter would be installed. 49. Commissioner Abels stated he would like to see the project move forward. C~My Documents\WPDOCS\pc I 1-10-98.wpd 1 5' 'Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 50. Commissioner Kirk stated he was struck by chairman Tyler's opening statement. From an economic development and political standpoint the project should be a "slam dunk", but maybe not from a planning standpoint. The Highway 111 Design Guidelines were created to hide cars and this plan is in contradiction to this. staff is interpreting the ordinance and the applicants are trying to stress their point of view. He does not like meandering sidewalks, berms, nor a great amount of mfr. However, in looking at the applicant's request and the Guidelines, they do not agree. Staff may have done too far by even allowing the display areas. He was confused as to how the Commission could proceed. From a planning perspective, staff may not have presented it in the best light, but staff is interpreting the ordinance as written. The Commission can either follow staff's recommendation, or reject the request. 51. Commissioner Buffer stated his concern comes from the fact that the original specific plan was approved and now is back for 'an amendment and under different building scenarios. Basically, theY can come to some conclusion as to displaying the vehicles from Highway 111. As to signage he has some concerns that have not been addressed. The meandering sidewalk is required: This project has to move along and everyone has to aCCept conditions that are compatible to both sides. 52. Commissioner Robbins stated he agreed that the project needs to go forward. Two items in the Design Guidelines are applicable to what is being done. The Guidelines speak of not stifling creativity, but serve as useful tools for the design professionals engaged in site specific designs for the Highway 111 corridor. This plan is creative and the Design Guidelines do stifle that creativity. The Guidelines are specific in regard to diSplay areas. He would challenge anyone to stand 20 feet from a Mesquite or flowering Acacia tree when they are not blooming and be able to tell the difference. He therefore, agrees with'the applicant in regard to the use of floWering trees. He takes issue with the way that it appears the recommendation of the ALRC was disregarded. Staff ignored their recommendation and put forth their own and should have identify why they disagreed with the Committee's recommendation. He agrees with requiting the Adams Street meandering sidewalk. Lastly, he supports staff in their attempt to have curb and gutter on both sides of the streets. 53. Chairman Tyler stated his major issues were due to parking facilities or displays. New car displays are covered under a conditional use permit process. Parking facilities are covered by the Zoning Ordinance. The whole purpose of the auto dealership is to sell cars. To require berming or screening is contrary to the purpose of the business. The distance from the street to the C:XMy Documents\WPDOCS\pcl 1-10-98.wpd 16 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 display areas will be 62 feet. They will not be displayed at the curb. He agrees it is not a highly used pedestrian sidewalk along Highway 111. Screening should be compatible, but not be so dense as to hide the car. In regard to the Highway 111 Design Guidelines, the City Attorney has stated they are the desire of the City Council, but they does have some flexibility. In regard to the flowering trees and the applicant's plant palette, anyone who has parked under a flowering tree knows the problems related to this and he would concur with the applicant's selection. The ALRC recommended increasing the number of trees, not doubling. He would agree with the applicant. The main issue they were trying to avoid was the moat effect. If there is water retention it will be behind the berming so it will not be a situation of looking down into a moat. In his opinion, it is a reasonable compromise. 54. Commissioner Abels stated this project has been a long time coming and both sides have worked to get a good project on the City's main corridor. It is a project the City needs. 55. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning commission Resolution 98-078 recommending to the City Council Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for Specific Plan 97-029 Amendment #1, Site Development Permit 97-603 Amendment #1, and Development Agreement 97-002 Amendment #1. 56. Staff stated the Commission would haVe to address the two mitigation issues identified in the SEIR in regard to Hydrology, to require retention on site, and. Aesthetics, or adequate berming to accomplish screening into the site. These measures have to be addressed. Commissioner Robbins amended the motion to change the wording "fully screened" to "adequately screened". 57. Commissioner Kirk stated the mitigation measure requires it to be screened. 58. Commissioner Robbins stated that the reason was because of the Design Guidelines. If the Guidelines did not exist, it would not be required. Staff stated the initial mitigation measure required'a six foot wall. Now that they are removing the wall it is necessary to provide adequate screening of the auto mall area, loading, storage, parking and lower building exteriors as viewed from Highway 111 and Adams Street. Commissioner Robbins amended his amendment to say "effective .screening". Community Development Director asked the Commission what they were trying to C:Wly Documtnts\WPDOCS\pc I 1-10-98.wpd 17 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 achieve. Commissioner Robbins stated he was not sure that a six foot wall would meet the requirement of "fully screened". By changing the wording to "effective" it would allow the Commission to get to the conditions and define "effective". In regard to the storm water retention, you can effectively screen the display areas and still have storm water retention in those areas and the two are not necessarily tied together. Community DevelOpment Director Jerry Herman stated a finding must be made that the applicant's proposal adequately screens the regular display area, or define what adequate means. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the mitigation measure that is part of the SEIR needs to specifically Say what has to be done to mitigate. 59. Commissioner Robbins asked if the mitigation measures as proposed to · "effectively screen" would provide the mitigation. Community Development Director stated it has to describe what that means, a three foot berm, or what. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the applicant is asking for their proposal and staff is saying it needs to go fm'ther. You can pick either Side, but the Commission needs to define what adequately mitigates this environmental concern. 60. Chairman Tyler asked if they reach the conclusion that the presentation by the applicant adequately screens what would need to be done? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they should make that finding and it will go to the City Council stating it is their finding. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Commission was saying, their finding is that the screening, as submitted by the applicant, of the regular display areas adequately screens. 61. Commissioner Robbins stated the applicant has presented a plan that shows the regular display areas will not be seen from Highway 111. Would the applicant have any problem if along those areas the berm is raised six inches to a foot to raise the berm higher to reach a mid point between the staff's recommendation and the applicant. Ms. Clarke stated there are a couple areas where some berms could be lifted six inches to a foot, but not on Pad # 1. 62. Ms. Carol May, attorney for the applicant, stated that in terms of compromise, what you see tonight is a compromise. What the Commission needs to do is make a finding that either the applicant is right, or staff, or make a new finding. Any new changes will require significant time and money and the applicant has already spent enormous amounts of time and money which will work against the City to get the project they need. All of these things are good to do, but at some time economics and reality have to intervene. 63. Commissioners Abels and Robbins withdrew their motion. C:Wly Documents\WPDOCS\pc 11-10-98.wpd 1 8 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 64. Commissioner Robbins stated he would like to poll'the Commission and see how they feel. In his opinion, he agreed with the applicant's landscaping proposal. 65. Commissioner Butler stated his concern was that the new car areas where the Mesquite trees will be used. He did not believe they would not adequately screen anything in the beginning. Therefore, the screening will not be effective until five years down the road. Maybe they should request larger trees upon initial planting. . 66. Commissioner Kirk asked if Commissioner Robbins was suggesting that the applicant's proposal, as presented, adequately screened to meet the mitigation 67. Commissioner Robbins stated he backed off of that and agrees that when the trees matured there will be adequate screening. 68. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not like the Guidelines, bm as presented, - the project does not meet the Guidelines. It is not the role of the Commission to consider the economic or timing of what the applicant has gone through, As to planning issues, the project does not adequately screen the vehicles from Highway 111. Maybe they should change the Ordinance, but there is no time to do this. He supports staff' s recommendation on the SEIR. 69. Commissioner Abels stated he has listened to all the Commissioners, but they have to come to a decision. He would agree with Commissioner Robbins. 70. Chairman Tyler agreed with Commissioner Robbins. Staff restated that the Commission's finding is that the applicant's proposed landscaping and berming adequately addresses the screening of the regular vehicle display 71. Commissioner Robbins suggested approving the landscaping as presented by the developer for Highway 111. He did not believe there is adequate room to retain water'on Adams Street and he did not think it effects the screening. If it is adequate the way it is bermed, you cannot see it from Highway 111 and is not the "moat" concept. 72. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed with Commissioner Robbins. 73. Commissioner Kirk stated this is a special use, both for the applicant and for. the City andthis will be setting a precedent. He would have to agree with the applicant. C:~My Documents\WPDOCS\pc I 1-10-98.wpd 19 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 74. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners .. Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-078 recommending to the City Council Certification of' the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for Specific Plan 97-029 Amendment #1, Site Development Permit 97-603 Amendment #1, and Development Agreement 97-002 Amendment # 1 with the findings that the landscaping and berming as proposed by the applicant is adequate to screen the regular vehicle display are along Highway 111. The storm water runoff from the norther portion of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 into the Highway 111 landscape setback as proposed by the applicant and not along Adams Street. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. · NOES; Commissioner Kirk. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 75. It was moved and seconded by Commissionei's Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-079 recommending to the City Council approval of"The Centre at La Quinta" Specific Plan Amendment #1, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended. A. Condition # 1, no change. B. Condition #2 needs to be clarified. C. Condition #3 revised that a deviation would be accepted for drainage of Pads #1, #2, and #3 and retained as by the applicant. D. ConditiOn #7 as proposed by staff with the exception of the sidewalk. E. ConditiOn #9 as submitted by the applicant in the specific plan in regards to the screening of the regular display areas. F. Condition 12 check for accuracy. G. Condition #13 changed to as applicant requested in the Specific Plan Amendment. H. Condition 14 trees as proposed are acceptable and not required to change except at the comers. I. Condition #15 one monument sign per dealership pad will be allowed. Wall signs for the dealers on the north building elevation will not be allowed. J. · Condition # 16 as recommended by staff. K. Condition # 18 to be deleted. L. Condition 21 revised to be retained as proposed by the applicant. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES: Commissioner'Kirk. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C :hMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc I 1 - 10-98.wpd 2 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1998 76. It was mov~lmd seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butle~ to adopt Planning Co~ion Resolution 98-080 recommending to the City Council approval of ~velopment Permit 97-603 Amendment #1, subject to the Findings an~i~mditions, of Approval .as amended. A. Con~ #6 'if the project is phased." B. Con,~-. #22 Adams Street runoff may not be retained. C. Con~im #29 per CVWD requirements. D. Conga #30 delete sidewalk on the south side of Auto Centre Drive and e~ide of La Quinta Drive. E. Con,~ #34 remove'last sentence and add, UAs per the City Eng,. F. Con,mm #36 per the applicant's proposal. G. Contra #37 change to the applicant's proposed plan. H. Con~ ff47 delete everything except B.1. for Torre Nisson rega~ window treatment. ROLL CALL: A~ommissioners Abels, Butler, Robb'.ms, and Chairman Tyler. NOEl'~ommissioner Kirk. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 77. It was moreland seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning C~ltissioner Resolution 98-081 recommending to the City Council appeal of Development Agreement Amendment #1 as submitted. ROLL CALL: A~mmissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyle~llOES; None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE ANI~/RITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII.. COMMISSIONER ITEM~: .. A. Chairman Tyler'ga,~a~pon of the City Council meeting of November 3, 1998. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it~anoved and seconded by Commissioners R0bbins/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the llllSng Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held November 2~1~!95, at 7:00 pan. This meeting of the Planning Commission -- was adjourned at 10:31 P.M. on Nmm~n' 10, 1998. C:~vly Documents\WPDOCS\p¢ 11-10-98.w1~ 21